Alternatives to current empire system.

from Sins Forums
we ended with spar's and wedges points last time. here they are respectively

"some" and "everything" are two very different things. and seeing as how I'm one of their first sponsors, I think I still have a right to something here.


This is a first time venture for them as far as I know and it is very important to their company so there is bound to be growing pains; such things are par for the course. Like you I'm somewhat PO at the lack of information but in all fairness they do provide us with most of the specific info that we post about. So they are trying to be transparent to some degree. Moreover I'm not saying you/we dont have a right to comment about such things just that we should allow them room with slam comments.



and do you think that when they are adressing the final "bitch" list that they will accept "the whole empire system is broken" as a valid thing to change? I dont think so.


I like to think that if a strong argument can be made for something that they would take it very seriously and change plans if some major issue happens within the community. Otherwise this whole process has been a colossal sham and we have been suckered. I dont think this is the case given my experience with SD for well over a decade. Brad simply would not do business like that or with such a company.


Isn't that the point? I just threw out a number and it is, of course, up to the balance team to make the final decision but it should be expensive. The idea is to allow you some more freedom but still encourage you to expand your empire as the primary means of acquiring more stuff.


now I'll adress them, starting with wedge
1) the point of the exponential relation is that its supposed to grow quickly, but if you do a doubling system it becomes unwieldy in one single purchase, and will become economic suicide to purchase more than two. that brings us back to the original point that its not enough.
and why would a monstrosity of a combo of the two systems make any sense in the first place? all your asking is to duck tape my idea onto the first one so it fixes the first couple of problems. its always better to build the system from teh ground up first.

thankfully the empire building is rather detatched from the military costs and the expansion system, so fixing it wont cause huge tears in the rest of the game.
and spar's comments:
if the devs commented as much as you seem to advocate they do, I wouldnt have an issue. but they dont, and they only really comment on out-of-the-way ideas or cool new concepts, not on CORE concepts of the game that need tweaking, and thats really where the gamer community can be the most useful.
second: theres a difference between being suckered, and being in a single sided conversation. right now I feel more like they listen to everything we say, incorporate a few things, but otherwise let us drive blind without knowing what we are saying is even being listened to. that personally really pisses me off, because I want to know if someone is going to dismiss my point out of hand, rather than me elaborating on a beautifully constructed system only for it not to be even looked at. I know there are plenty of ideas on this forum which can fix many of the difficult issues in this new style of gameplay, but I rarely see them incorporated into the game!
take for instance the 3-D arguement, the Devs said long ago that they planned on incorporating 3-D "fully", so we ranted for a larger portion of a year thinking THAT system was what was to be used, low and behold we get blindsided by a "2-D +++!" system instead, and a ton of useful rumination has gone to complete crap.
5,351 views 17 replies
Reply #1 from Sins Forums Top

Schem your feedback is great and well thought out even if I don't agree with all the points (though some of the team does). These points are all addressed internally (we haven't got through them all yet) but there is no way I can respond to them with the level of detail that would satisfy you or anyone else who puts that level of effort in. As it is, debates on some of these topics can go for hours in vocal discussion - electronically would be completely unfeasible. As you have no doubt noticed, I most often respond to singular bullet point issues that have their own thread or posting in the gameplay or technical thread - it's a simple question of efficiency. 

If I involved myself in full capacity to explain every decision and change and fully immerse myself in every debate the game would never be completed. We prefer, out of neccessity, to analyze all the forum data (debates, complaints, arguments, likings, dislikes) and incorporate those into our internal discussions - often one person will champion certain forum ideas against another's.

I know it looks backwards that those who post very organized, detailed, and notable feedback appear to get the least attention but that isn't the case - it just isn't attention that is apparent on the forums.

All that being said, we are doing our best to address everyone's concerns and we definately don't have any more time to do more than we are doing. Certainly I could never prove it short of having everyone on the forums attend our meetings in person but I hope, to some degree both Stardock and ourselves have established that we are going far beyond what most developers do in terms of interaction and listening to the community's feedback. There is no doubt that many of the changes between beta 1 and 2 reflected dramatic gameplay shifts based on beta 1 feedback. I can testify that the manhours that went into discussing and making those changes (many of which were unplanned) were enourmous (and some are still ongoing!) It is very surprising, difficult, and demoralizing for our team to read things that suggest we aren't listening to the community or we are only paying attention to trivial suggestions. But all the same, we are extremely grateful for everything that has been contributed - Sins has benefitted so much and I'm sure there is tons of great feedback yet to come!

As for the large concern that spawned this thread - certainly the cap issue is under analysis. Everyone is in agreement here that it needs a bit of a boost and we are aware of everyone's proposals. As the issue is fairly complicated and potentially time consuming to implement a solution, the next patch will only include a temporary fix. This is not to be mistaken for ignorance of the potentially superior solutions that have been suggested here and elsewhere.

Please continue the discussion on the topic of this thread - it is an important one and we are listening!

Reply #2 from Sins Forums Top
Schem your feedback is great and well thought out even if I don't agree with all the points (though some of the team does). These points are all addressed internally (we haven't got through them all yet) but there is no way I can respond to them with the level of detail that would satisfy you or anyone else who puts that level of effort in

I'm not going to push this farther, I just want to make the point that detail isnt the issue, I would just like to know what you guys have pretty much set in stone so that I dont waste my time on it. I know you guys digest everything here and make the best decisions (for instance, despite the tone of my previous post I actually prefer the 2D +++ system, it just was a bit of a shocker at first) but if something is rooted and/or not going to be otherwise considered it would be nice to know what.
again, I apologize for being an ass, as that wont change anytime soon. I hope the team can put my ideas to some good use, whether or not you use them or if they simply spark discussion.
Please continue the discussion on the topic of this thread - it is an important one and we are listening!

yes, lets stop with the pointless digression, back to the original point of the thread:
what do people propose as a fix/alternative? currently we have the "raise the cap" idea and the alternative "point-buy, point-spend". I havent heard of any other alternatives so if you have them, post 'em.
WindowBlinds - Free yourself of the default settings, customize your desktop.
Reply #3 from Sins Forums Top
All I want to address right now, is the current buy planet upgrade space then buy thing I want to buy. I don't like it. It seems contrived. I'd rather get x amount of free orbitals per planet and then buy extra at a even increasing rate of cost. I wish the buying of space to place the later bought orbital was more behind the scenes, so that I just need to buy the orbital and the space comes with. If that means a changing cost per orbital per purchase, so be it.....?
Reply #4 from Sins Forums Top

not on CORE concepts of the game that need tweaking, and thats really where the gamer community can be the most useful.

thats where gamer communities are the least useful imo

Reply #5 from Sins Forums Top
shoo shoe, thats off topic.
but to humor you, you're wrong imo.
Reply #6 from Sins Forums Top
This is probably the worst idea ever (fitting I say it then really ) but would it break the game to remove any imposed limit on the number of ships you can build? (other than an overall performance based limit)

I'm suggesting it mainly because its the only one i can think of off the top of my head that isnt either of the two SchematicNinja outlined   
Reply #7 from Sins Forums Top
The old system of upkeep per ship/structure was pretty realistic, and doable up until you hit the 75% cap from there it all went to hell in a handbasket. The freedom you had with that system is pretty much what hooked me into the game. That is not to say i don't like the current system. In fact i do, but it does need allot of work. Buffing up the numbers is a temporary fix, but like Schem has been trying to say it may not be enough.

I propose a system that combines both the old, and the new.

Bring back the upkeep system... This time with no spending cutoff at 75%. This would apply for the ships, and structures like shipyards. With no spending cutoff if your economy cant support your empires fleet then you can easily fall into debt. If you overbuild, and don't have the income to maintain it things can get petty tough for you. This can be simulated by ships, and structures taking damage over time due to the lack of funds to maintain, and repair them. Self repair ceases to function, and repair stations stop working until you find a way to get out of debt. Ether by taking more worlds, by scuttling unnecessary units, or selling on the black market. Possibly add that the deeper in debt you are the faster ships, and structures take damage over time, and the possibility of planetary revolts due to your inept financial management. This will remove the hard caps for ships but still regulate how many you can realistically field on the map, and you have the freedom to build, and play how you want to.

Keep the slot system... Each planet does have a finite amount of real estate. However it should not be restricted to certain types of upgrades. I think planets should have single development upgrades that give x amount of TOTAL slots. What you do with those slots is up to you. Build research stations, shipyards, guns whatever, but once you hit the max slots thats it. These developments also increase your population, and infrastructure. How many stages of development a planet has depends on what type of planet it is. Just like the current system we have now. With your capitol getting an extra stage just for being your capitol. Even the dead roids should be able to be developed somewhat. This system still caps your building , but gives you the freedom to build what you want where you want to build it. Its all about playing the game how you want to play it.
Reply #8 from Sins Forums Top
Bring back the upkeep system

only comment: the increase in upkeep/unit needs to be slightly modified. 1) it should change if you have more planets (which I dont think happened in the old game) and 2) it needs to be dampened a bit, the center 25-75 range goes very, very quickly
Keep the slot system...

ok, but I have an issue with the "total slot" system because it removes a lot of diversification from the game. (that either other scenario does not nescessarily do)

under the current system (and this is where I think the IC team hit the nail right on the head) each planet has a specific focus that its better at, terran ahve a higher pop cap, ice more crystal, volcanos support the most ships, deserts have the most logistic slots, roids are everywhere and dead roids are the best choke points in the game. this can still be preserved given another alternative (including P-B P-S) and if it can I would prefer to keep it that way.
Reply #9 from Sins Forums Top
@Schem - Please dont think I'm against you on your main point (lack of concrete information) as I am not. I happen to agree wholeheartedly. I'm merely suggesting that you should consider the very real business side of what is going on here for for SD & IG and should allow them some latitude with information dissemination policy.

You are aware I have suggested several time to establish a private test group where information could be more freely shared amongst the more hardcore people like us but to date they have decided against that and it is not our place to try to force them to do so even as "prepaid" customers. There are many variables for them to consider both legally and administratively that we simply have no business trying to manipulate even if we feel it is better for the community.

Regarding the empire system, personally speaking I liked the older system better but I wanted a free or open tax system built-in because I saw that element as the missing part of it which in my mind lead to all the issues at least the ones I experienced. Moreover I do not consider it to much micromanagement in the slightest. But it appears that others such as the devs do at this point in time.

Regardless the devs however wanted to try a new system this time around and I'm all for that just because we have to allow for testing of different methods to see what works best for the community not necessarily what is the most efficient or realistic to us as end users.

Reply #10 from Sins Forums Top
Please dont think I'm against you on your main point (lack of concrete information)

again, I dont need any "concrete" info beyond "this is what we're thinking about, this is what we're not". beyond that I'm going to continue to muse anyway.
and did I not just say this arguement is over? quit it.
Regardless the devs however wanted to try a new system this time around and I'm all for that just because we have to allow for testing of different methods to see what works best for the community not necessarily what is the most efficient or realistic to us as end users.

I dont dislike the new system, I just think it could use a bit of creative work. like I said, it brought a really cool element of diversity to teh planets that was not present in the older system.
Reply #11 from Sins Forums Top
Have upkeep levels change proportional to the population level?
Reply #12 from Sins Forums Top
there are no upkeep levels, that system has been scrapped for the alliance and the new civic development system.
Reply #13 from Sins Forums Top
Why not put it back in? I like the idea of upkeep, it slows down late-game fleets to something reasonable.
Reply #14 from Sins Forums Top


again, I dont need any "concrete" info beyond "this is what we're thinking about, this is what we're not". beyond that I'm going to continue to muse anyway.
and did I not just say this arguement is over? quit it.


I fail to see where you clearly stated just prior to my post the argument is over in this thread.



I dont dislike the new system, I just think it could use a bit of creative work. like I said, it brought a really cool element of diversity to teh planets that was not present in the older system.

That is good to know. See new things can lead to better things if given a chance to be developed.

Reply #15 from Sins Forums Top
I fail to see where you clearly stated just prior to my post the argument is over in this thread.


yes, lets stop with the pointless digression, back to the original point of the thread

there ya go
Why not put it back in? I like the idea of upkeep, it slows down late-game fleets to something reasonable

like I said, it has been replaced by the allegiance system, dont worry.
and it makes more sense this way.
Reply #16 from Sins Forums Top
there ya go


I took that statement about the digression in a different context then the one addressed in my post as a follow up to your prior post. -nuff said.
Reply #17 from Sins Forums Top
I disliked the old Upkeep System simply because of its limit at 75% of income. It would have made far more sense to leave the upkeep system open, so you could even get over 100% of your income diverted to upkeep. Of course, the developers would have needed some sort of system to penalize players who go into debt (slow damage to ships/structures, unhappy populations, so on).

The new Civic Development system adds a bit more strategic depth to the game (a good thing). Still, it might make more sense for Logistical and Tactical slots to be merged into the same group since they are both orbital structures. I mean, both Logistical and Tactical structures are in orbit, and they both need similar support. So why do they have separate development/deployment slots?

Also, combining Tactical and Logistical slots would please those who so far are upset that there are not enough Logistical slots to go around.

As for the total Fleet Support development concept, it would make more sense if it were relabeled to "Fleet Support Infrastructure". After all, it is the development of ground based and orbital support facilities that are responsible for increasing the total number of ships you can support at once.